LALMAN Vs. NOKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Ojha, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent no. 1.

(2.) The respondent nos. 2 to 7 and respondent no. 11 are proforma parties and in view of the office report dated 3.1.2013, service of notice on the said respondents is deemed to be sufficient. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 7 and respondent no. 11.

(3.) Against the order dated 5.11.2011 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in chak allotment proceedings, the petitioner filed Revision No. 146 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 6.1.2012 and the allotment of chaks as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation were amended by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On 13.7.2012, respondent no. 1 filed an application for recall of the order dated 6.1.2012 praying that the order dated 6.1.2012 be recalled which was referred in the application as ex-parte order. The petitioner filed his objections stating that the order dated 6.1.2012 was not an ex-parte order as respondent no. 1 had appeared in the proceedings and argued his case and had also put his thumb impression on the order-sheet. It was stated in the objections that the summons in the case were personally served on respondent no. 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 20.7.2012 recalled his previous order dated 6.1.2012 and subsequently vide order dated 27.7.2012 disposed of the revision again amending the allotment of chaks as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation adversely affecting the petitioner. The orders dated 20.7.2012 and 27.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.